If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

More false accusation persisted in. I have stated on this forum for years what I exactly believe. You have lied on me. I stated to one of my adversaries that he doesn't believe that all sinners Christ died for are saved, but they may be and are lost, they will tell you thats what they believe and teach. I never ever stated that, so you have lied on me.

Now show me/us a quote where I stated that sinners Christ died for can be lost. If you cant admit you lied !

Here is one place where you said that sinners for whom Christ died can be lost:

One cannot be said to [sic] found and not saved,m [sic] and that is what Christ came to do, He came to seek and TO SAVE that which was Lost.

Now was He 100 % successful in SEEKING and SAVING that which was Lost ?
YES OR NO !!!!

In this quote, you are not only admitting that sinners for whom Christ died CAN be lost, you are admitting that they ARE, by definition, lost until they are found/saved.

So, yeah, you do, indeed, believe that sinners for whom Christ died ARE lost.

If you think that there is at least one person for whom Christ died who has not yet been saved, then you obviously think that that person for whom Christ died is lost.

And, obviously, if there are people for whom Christ died who have not yet been saved, then the answer to your question, "was He 100 % successful in...SAVING that which was Lost ?", must be NO, since they have not been saved yet, and are still unregenerate--that is, they are still Calvinism's unregenerate elect.

It is pretty simple. No need to fly into a rage at me.

Bonus question:

You admit that those for whom Christ died ARE lost, so long as they are not saved. So, what about those for whom (as you imagine) Christ did not die? Are the non-elect lost, or not?

In this quote, you are not only admitting that sinners for whom Christ died CAN be lost, you are admitting that they ARE, by definition, lost until they are found/saved.

So, yeah, you do, indeed, believe that sinners for whom Christ died ARE lost.

If you think that there is at least one person for whom Christ died who has not yet been saved, then you obviously think that that person for whom Christ died is lost.

And, obviously, if there are people for whom Christ died who have not yet been saved, then the answer to your question, "was He 100 % successful in...SAVING that which was Lost ?", must be NO, since they have not been saved yet, and are still unregenerate--that is, they are still Calvinism's unregenerate elect.

It is pretty simple. No need to fly into a rage at me.

Bonus question:

You admit that those for whom Christ died ARE lost, so long as they are not saved. So, what about those for whom (as you imagine) Christ did not die? Are the non-elect lost, or not?

More false accusation and misrepresentation

"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

OK. Thank you for clarifying that it is false that you believe that sinners for whom Christ died are lost before they are found.

Now we understand that you do NOT believe that sinners for whom Christ died are lost before they are found.

So, since we now understand you were not speaking of sinners for whom Christ died, then to whom, exactly, were you referring by the phrase "that which was Lost", when you said that Christ came "TO SAVE that which was Lost"?

OK. Thank you for clarifying that it is false that you believe that sinners for whom Christ died are lost before they are found.

Now we understand that you do NOT believe that sinners for whom Christ died are lost before they are found.

So, since we now understand you were not speaking of sinners for whom Christ died, then to whom, exactly, were you referring by the phrase "that which was Lost", when you said that Christ came "TO SAVE that which was Lost"?

More false accusations and misrepresentation

"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

Observe that your post, #18, is your first post in this thread I started, and your post, #18, was directly submitted as a reply to my thread-initiating post, #1.

Here, again, is what I wrote in post #1, in its entirety:

Originally Posted by 7djengo7

According to Charles Spurgeon, Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

Since Calvinism is the gospel, every person who does not believe Calvinism is a person who does not believe the gospel. And, every person who has never believed the gospel is a person who has never been saved. So, unless you have believed Calvinism, you have never been saved.

I asked no question in my post, #1. Not one. That's why you do not see any question mark(s) therein. I wrote three, short, declarative sentences, and nothing else; not one or more interrogative sentences. So, right off the bat, your having written "Asked and answered" manifestly has no relevance to what I wrote in post #1.

Obviously, you have a gripe with what I did write in post #1, so you just had to try to do something to vent your frustration at me, even though what you wrote amounts to naught. (Although, at least this time you were able to use far less text to say nothing than you usually do in your reactions to my posts!) But, your gripe is against the necessary consequence from the propositions that

1. Calvinism is the gospel,

and that

2. Every person who has never believed the gospel is a person who has never been saved.

Why do you hypocrites go about identifying Calvinism with the gospel, yet you refuse to come out with a spine and declare the necessary consequence of that supposed identity, which is that those who have never believed Calvinism have never been saved?

Is every person who has never believed Calvinism a person who has never been saved? Yes or No?

No,its the other way around, you've been lying about me, and have persisted in it relentlessly !

"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

But, you didn't, because you can't. Whatever you drew, it's not a circle.

Then in that context I would agree. Calvinism is not the gospel. The gospel is the gospel. But it's a reduction to the absurd or tautological (or both?). Because then I can't (by that reasoning) draw a reasonable facsimile of a circle (so that you recognize what it is I'm drawing) and then draw a reasonable facsimile of (for example) a square and say one is a circle and one is a square so that I am contrasting critical points to highlight what is wrong when certain people "nowadays" call a square a circle. In that situation, if you are going to say "That's not a circle", then you're missing the intent of my comparison by requiring some devotion to absolute literality in a situation where my purpose is something else.

Absolutely...if Spurgeon is teaching the details of the gospel and the details of Calvinism with precision, he's not going to make that statement (or at least I can't see him doing it - but then I am more sympathetic with Newton's approach). There is a degree of hyperbole in it made to emphasize the fact that he sees Calvinism as absolutely true, but I think in his sermon he makes it abundantly clear that his specific and precise focus is not Calvinism per se, but it is the God of the bible - the Christ of the bible.

I'm a little out of my depth here, but the way I read the English rendition (and have minimal understanding of the underlying Greek), Paul is engaging in something like that here :

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.Philippians 3:2

He effectively calls circumcision mutilation. Are they the same thing? Can we say circumcision is mutilation? The inflection is there to make a point. And if we were to look at tithing (for example) and call it protection money paid to God to protect and keep His people (in the context of Malachi 3:11) and so paint the picture of God in the light of a mafia don - what justice is there in that picture (even though there is truth in the fact that God promised to restore Israel's fortunes if they tithed faithfully)? It's a corruption of the truth even though there is an element of truth in it. The only point I'm trying to make here is that taking a concept to its extreme may render something literally wrong even though the core element is true. So with Spurgeon claiming Calvinism is the gospel - nothing more, nothing less - you need first of all to see the context in which he said that - and then realize that to take that to its full logical extent (i.e. that the full gospel is described accurately and completely by Calvinism and to take anything away from the complete doctrine of Calvinism is necessarily to take away from the gospel) is to import something into the statement that was not intended and so it caricatures it and changes it.

So while I would agree with the strictly logical statement that the statement "Calvinism is the gospel - nothing more nothing less" is not true, the foregoing posts serve to explain why I don't see it as a viable point of contention for assailing Calvinism since it adopts a caricature that I don't believe would be agreed to by most Calvinists or even be supported by the Calvinist corpus.

If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.Isaiah 50:10-11

Then in that context I would agree. Calvinism is not the gospel. The gospel is the gospel. But it's a reduction to the absurd or tautological (or both?). Because then I can't (by that reasoning) draw a reasonable facsimile of a circle (so that you recognize what it is I'm drawing) and then draw a reasonable facsimile of (for example) a square and say one is a circle and one is a square so that I am contrasting critical points to highlight what is wrong when certain people "nowadays" call a square a circle. In that situation, if you are going to say "That's not a circle", then you're missing the intent of my comparison by requiring some devotion to absolute literality in a situation where my purpose is something else.

Absolutely...if Spurgeon is teaching the details of the gospel and the details of Calvinism with precision, he's not going to make that statement (or at least I can't see him doing it - but then I am more sympathetic with Newton's approach). There is a degree of hyperbole in it made to emphasize the fact that he sees Calvinism as absolutely true, but I think in his sermon he makes it abundantly clear that his specific and precise focus is not Calvinism per se, but it is the God of the bible - the Christ of the bible.

I'm a little out of my depth here, but the way I read the English rendition (and have minimal understanding of the underlying Greek), Paul is engaging in something like that here :

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.Philippians 3:2

He effectively calls circumcision mutilation. Are they the same thing? Can we say circumcision is mutilation? The inflection is there to make a point. And if we were to look at tithing (for example) and call it protection money paid to God to protect and keep His people (in the context of Malachi 3:11) and so paint the picture of God in the light of a mafia don - what justice is there in that picture (even though there is truth in the fact that God promised to restore Israel's fortunes if they tithed faithfully)? It's a corruption of the truth even though there is an element of truth in it. The only point I'm trying to make here is that taking a concept to its extreme may render something literally wrong even though the core element is true. So with Spurgeon claiming Calvinism is the gospel - nothing more, nothing less - you need first of all to see the context in which he said that - and then realize that to take that to its full logical extent (i.e. that the full gospel is described accurately and completely by Calvinism and to take anything away from the complete doctrine of Calvinism is necessarily to take away from the gospel) is to import something into the statement that was not intended and so it caricatures it and changes it.

So while I would agree with the strictly logical statement that the statement "Calvinism is the gospel - nothing more nothing less" is not true, the foregoing posts serve to explain why I don't see it as a viable point of contention for assailing Calvinism since it adopts a caricature that I don't believe would be agreed to by most Calvinists or even be supported by the Calvinist corpus.

Please, do not take this as mean, or a putdown, because I am really not trying to attack you, but I just really don't understand what you're trying to say.

Are you not just trying to equivocate on the word 'Calvinism'? Would you say that, on the one hand, there is a sense of the word 'Calvinism' according to which the proposition, 'Calvinism is the gospel', is true, while, on the other hand, there is also a sense of the word 'Calvinism' according to which the proposition, 'Calvinism is the gospel' is false (and, of course, the proposition, 'Calvinism is not the gospel' is true)?

When you say that I am "assailing Calvinism", are you using the term 'Calvinism' in the same sense as when you use the term 'Calvinism' in affirming that the proposition, 'Calvinism is the gospel', "is not true"? Would you say that the object you claim I am assailing is the Calvinism that you are now openly declaring to be NOT the gospel?

Is there any sense of the word 'Calvinism' according to which you can readily affirm that Calvinism IS the gospel? For instance, what about the sense of the word 'Calvinism'--whatever that sense be--that "would be agreed to by most Calvinists"? Is Calvinism, in that sense, the gospel, or not?

Is there any sense of the word 'Calvinism' according to which you are ready to affirm that 'Every person who has never believed Calvinism is a person who has never been saved'?

2. Sinners for whom Christ died are NOT lost before they are found/saved.

Am I mistaken?

I have many threads here on what i believe. Read them since now you want to know so bad. You should have done that before you made false accusations!

"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

I have many threads here on what i believe. Read them since now you want to know so bad. You should have done that before you made false accusations!

I just asked you a very specific, point-blank question about two propositions, as to whether or not you believe them. Since you are a Calvinism huckster, and therefore, not an honest person, of course you cannot answer my question!

I've read some of your posts, and they amount to nothing but ravings with random chunks of Scripture patched in, here and there, indiscriminately, to no purpose, and proving nothing, other than that you are begging for attention.

In not a single one of your posts have you answered the questions I have asked you. But, since you are merely a Calvinism huckster--I mean, you don't even rise to the level of a would-be apologist for Calvinism (which is neither Biblically, nor rationally defensible)--obviously you always will, because you must, refuse to try to answer every question I ask about what you believe (or, at least, what you pretend to believe).

I just asked you a very specific, point-blank question about two propositions, as to whether or not you believe them. Since you are a Calvinism huckster, and therefore, not an honest person, of course you cannot answer my question!

I've read some of your posts, and they amount to nothing but ravings with random chunks of Scripture patched in, here and there, indiscriminately, to no purpose, and proving nothing, other than that you are begging for attention.

In not a single one of your posts have you answered the questions I have asked you. But, since you are merely a Calvinism huckster--I mean, you don't even rise to the level of a would-be apologist for Calvinism (which is neither Biblically, nor rationally defensible)--obviously you always will, because you must, refuse to try to answer every question I ask about what you believe (or, at least, what you pretend to believe).

You heard what i said.

"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

This thread is but a rehash of your earlier mishmash related to Spurgeon. My response in the earlier thread is applicable in this redundant thread.

It is even more on point herein as at least one of us (not you) took the time define our terms (e.g., Calvinism, Gospel) beforehand.

AMR

Your reaction in the earlier thread was not even applicable in that thread, let alone in this thread.

Again, Professor Stonewaller, here's a question I recently asked you, and you have not yet answered it, even though this most recent post of yours, #37, was directly submitted as a reply to the very post (#35) in which I asked it of you:

Is every person who has never believed Calvinism a person who has never been saved? Yes or No?

Now, let's reword it, a bit, since you like to play stupid when you are asked embarrassing questions about Calvinism:

Is every person who has never believed what YOU think of as, and call "Calvinism"--whatever it be--a person who has never been saved? Yes or No?